Rating and Stats

Document Actions

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Description: It would appear that San Jose is really angry at Apple as the third Class Action filed against Apple from that city is Amanda Holman. In her filing she notes that "Instead of disclosing to unsuspec...

It would appear that San Jose is really angry at Apple as the third Class Action filed against Apple from that city is Amanda Holman. In her filing she notes that "Instead of disclosing to unsuspecting consumers that replacing the iPhone battery would restore your iPhone’s performance speed and functionality, Apple secretly ...

1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2 4. The Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2). The

3 matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000

4 and is a class action in which there are in excess of 100 class members and some of the

5 members of the class are citizens of states different from Defendant.

6 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant is

7 authorized to and does conduct business in California. Defendant has marketed, promoted,

8 distributed, and sold the Subject iPhones in California, and Defendant’s primary place of

9 business is in California, rendering exercise of jurisdiction by California courts permissible.
10 6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(a) and (b) because a
BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP

11 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this

1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2 10. Apple is the only smartphone manufacturer to control every aspect of its

3 product design—both hardware and software.

4 11. Apple purposefully and secretly planted code into operating system updates that

5 was designed to degrade the performance of the older Subject iPhones after newer iPhone

6 models were introduced as part of a strategy to induce its customers to purchase newer

7 iPhones.

8 12. Apple’s iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus were released on September 19, 2014. At

9 the time of launch, the iPhone 6 was available to those committing to a 2-year service contract
10 for $199 (16GB variant), $299 (64 GB variant), and $399 (128 GB variant), and was available
BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP

19 23. Apple’s description of the scope and purpose of iOS version 11.2 was false and
20 deceptive. Unbeknownst to iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus, iPhone 7, and
21 iPhone 7 Plus owners, Apple misrepresented a material purpose of the update and failed to
22 disclose that it again inserted code into the iOS version 11.2.0 that dramatically slowed down
23 the processing performance of these phones by linking each phone’s processing performance
24 with its battery health.
25 24. Nowhere in its representations did Apple disclose that iOS version 11.2 was
26 incompatible with and would impair or degrade the Subject iPhone’s performance and speed.
27 To the contrary, Apple prompted Subject iPhone owners to download iOS version 11.2 in order
28 to obtain “fixes and improvements.”

8 All persons in the United States who purchased or leased any one of the
following models of iPhone: iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6S, iPhone
9 6S Plus, iPhone SE, iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus.
10 32. In the alternative to the Nationwide Class, Plaintiff brings this class action
BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP

18 34. Certification of Plaintiff’s claims for classwide treatment is appropriate because

19 Plaintiff can prove the elements of his claims on a classwide basis using the same evidence as
20 would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claims

21 35. Numerosity – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). The members of the
22 Class are so numerous that individual joinder of all Class members is impracticable. Defendant

23 has sold many thousands of Subject iPhones to Class members.

24 36. Commonality and Predominance – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
25 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3). This action involves common questions of law and fact, which
26 predominate over any questions affecting individual Class members, including, without

1 39. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
2 23(b)(2). Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and
3 the other Class members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and declaratory

4 relief, as described below, with respect to Class as a whole.

5 40. Superiority – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). A class action is
6 superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy,

7 and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action.

8 The damages or other detriment suffered by Plaintiff and the other Class members are

9 relatively small compared to the burden and expense that would be required to individually
10 litigate their claims against Defendant, so it would be impracticable for Class members to
BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP

11 individually seek redress for Defendant’s wrongful conduct. Even if Class members could

12 afford individual litigation, the court system should not be required to undertake such an

13 unnecessary burden. Individualized litigation would also create a potential for inconsistent or

14 contradictory judgments, and increase the delay and expense to all parties and the court

3 the iOS updates, and by engaging in the following practices proscribed by Civil Code §1770(a)

4 in transactions that were intended to result in, and did result in, the sale or lease of goods or

5 services:

6 a. Representing that goods or services have…characteristics,…uses, [or]
benefits,…which they do not have (Civil Code §1770(a)(5));
7
b. Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality,
8 or grade…if they are of another (Civil Code §1770(a)(7));
9 c. Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised
10 (Civil Code §1770(a)(9)); and
BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP

11 d. Representing that goods or services have been supplied in accordance
with previous representations when they have not (Civil Code
12 §1770(a)(16)).

13 45. Defendant violated the CLRA by representing and failing to disclose material
14 facts, as described above, when it knew, or should have known, that the representations were
15 false and misleading and that the omissions were of material facts they were obligated to
16 disclose.
17 46. Pursuant to Civil Code §1782(d), Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the
18 other members of the Class, seeks a Court order enjoining the above-described wrongful acts
19 and practices of Defendant, ordering Defendant to extend repair and replacement remedies to
20 all Class members, and awarding restitution and disgorgement.
21 47. Pursuant to §1782 of the CLRA, Plaintiff notified Defendant in writing by
22 certified mail of the particular violations of §1770 of the CLRA and demanded that Defendant
23 rectify the problems associated with the actions detailed above and give notice to all affected
24 consumers of Defendant’s intent to so act. A copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
25 48. If Defendant fails to rectify or agree to rectify the problems associated with the
26 actions detailed above and give notice to all affected consumers within 30 days of the date of
27 written notice pursuant to §1782 of the CLRA, Plaintiff will amend this complaint to add
28 claims for actual, punitive and statutory damages, as appropriate.